Reimer v. Newel
| Decision Date | 09 October 1891 |
| Citation | 47 Minn. 237 |
| Parties | ANNIE REIMER and another <I>vs.</I> STANFORD NEWEL. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Both parties claimed title from Abby L. Newel, who, on April 8, 1874, being seised in fee, conveyed the lot to Bernhard Reimer for $1,000, taking back a purchase-money mortgage of $750, securing four notes payable, respectively, at one, two, three, and four years from that date. The mortgage contained a covenant by the mortgagor that he would pay all taxes assessed on the premises. No payment was made on the mortgage debt, except $50 paid in 1874, nor did Reimer pay any of the taxes. Abby L. Newel died in 1882, and her will was proved in Hennepin county, and on August 28, 1882, letters of administration with the will annexed were issued to defendant, a resident of Ramsey county, who has ever since been such administrator. Plaintiffs are the widow and the grantee of the heirs-at-law of Bernhard Reimer, who departed from the state about April 1, 1875, and never returned.
On April 14, 1875, John B. Mueller and John Heinrich, creditors of Reimer, attempted to bring suit against him in the district court for Hennepin county, and caused a judgment to be entered, which was void for the reason that his name was spelled Reiner in the published summons, the affidavit for attachment being also defective. A writ of attachment was, however, issued and levied on the lot prior to publication of the summons. Execution issued on the judgment and was levied on the lot in question, and at the execution sale, September 23, 1876, Mueller and Heinrich purchased, and afterwards Mueller conveyed to Heinrich, and in September, 1884, Heinrich conveyed, by quitclaim deed, to this defendant. There was no redemption from the sale. On December 30, 1884, defendant presented his deed to the county auditor for certification and entry of transfer, and on the same day filed it for record. The auditor transferred the lot on his books into the name of defendant, and it has ever since been assessed in his name as owner.
On August 25, 1884, a tax judgment for the taxes of 1883 was entered against the lot, under which it was sold, on September 18, 1884, to one Johnson, who, on February 16, 1886, assigned his certificate of purchase to the defendant. On July 26, 1889, the defendant presented the certificate, so assigned to himself, to the county auditor, who issued a "notice of expiration of redemption" in the usual form, addressed "to Stanford Newel," and in which the property was described as "Penniman's Addition, Lot 8, Block 4," without mention of city, county, or state. "Penniman's Addition to Minneapolis" was at that time an old and well-known platted tract, situated in the central resident portion of the city, and the only subdivision in the city or county platted or known by any name embracing the word "Penniman" or any similar word, and was and is commonly known and designated by the inhabitants of the city as "Penniman's Addition," and as well known to the general public by that name as by the fuller designation "Penniman's Addition to Minneapolis," which latter designation was used in describing the lot in question in the tax judgment and all proceedings anterior thereto, and in all the papers relating to the sale, except the "notice of expiration of redemption." The auditor delivered this notice to the sheriff, who returned it to the auditor's office on July 30, 1889, with two papers annexed to it, the first being a certificate of the sheriff, by John B. Sirois, his deputy, that after diligent search he could not find "the within-named defendant, Stanford Newel," in his county; the second being an affidavit of the same deputy "that on the 30th day of July, A. D. 1889, he visited the premises described in the annexed notice of expiration of redemption; that after diligent search and inquiry he found the said premises unoccupied, and therefore returned same as wholly unoccupied." The auditor thereupon caused the notice to be regularly published. Proof of publication was duly filed, and no redemption was made, nor were the taxes of 1883 ever paid except by the sale.
The action was tried by Hicks, J., who found the facts as above recited, and that throughout the year 1889 the lot was in fact vacant and unoccupied, and that defendant's purchase of the tax title from Johnson was not intended to and did not operate as a payment of the tax of 1883, nor was that title taken by him for the protection of Reimer or his heirs or the estate of Abby L. Newel. The court also found the facts on which rested an earlier tax title relied on by defendant, but which was held void, and also, in the findings, recited in detail the proceedings on which the tax judgment and sale of 1884 were based, and which are considered in the opinion. Upon these facts the court held that upon the expiration of the time of redemption pursuant to the notice, which was prior to the commencement of this action, defendant became vested with a perfect title in fee, which he has still retained. Judgment was accordingly ordered for defendant, a new trial was refused, and the plaintiffs appealed.
Selden Bacon, J. C. Judge, and Sawyer & Sawyer, for appellants.
Daniel Fish, for respondent.
As the defendant prevailed in the court below solely upon the strength of a tax title acquired by sale of the premises in controversy under a judgment for the taxes for the year 1883, it is only necessary to consider the points made by the plaintiffs against the validity of that title.
1. The board of county commissioners of Hennepin county designated the newspaper in which the delinquent tax list should be published at their meeting held on the first Monday in January, 1884, pursuant to the provisions of Sp. Laws 1877, c. 205. It is claimed that under the provisions of Gen. St. 1878, c. 11, § 72, requiring the board of county commissioners to make this designation "at their annual meeting in January or at the meeting of said board in March," this ought to have been done at a meeting held on the first Tuesday of January, as provided by Gen. St. 1878, c. 8, § 102. Our view is that the act of 1877 is, as to Hennepin county, a substitute for, or amendment of, prior statutes fixing the times for meetings of the board of county commissioners, and consequently that the only meeting which they are required to hold in the month of January is that held on the first Monday of that month, which is therefore "their annual meeting in January."
2. The resolution of the board...
To continue reading
Request your trial